anticlimactic

 
   Posted by at  Comments Off on anticlimactic

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 109 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Debt Rattle August 18 2019 #49272

    anticlimactic
    Participant

    HONG KONG

    Under the British Hong Kong was never allowed democracy. The first use of plastic bullets by the British was in Hong Kong against rioting Chinese. Many Chinese were so poor that they lived outside in cages stacked on top of one another.

    Halcyon days the protesters want to come back! They may even succeed!

    I have no doubt that the protests are being orchestrated by the US and the UK. They are doing it for a bit of a giggle hoping they can cause problems for the Chinese government.

    I think one of the main aims is to destroy the economy of Hong Kong. It is far easier to create terrorists when the target population is suffering. So far I read that some of the richest have left Hong Kong [with their money], also of course tourism has crashed. I don’t think targeting the airport was random. I feel that the US wants China to intervene harshly to provide a reason for escalation.

    Whether they like it or not Hong Kong is part of China, although with special privileges. If the protests can provoke China enough to revoke these privileges then the US can use it for political posturing.

    By contrast : I wonder how the US would react if China started funding, for example, ANTIFA, and directing their actions!?

    in reply to: Debt Rattle August 18 2019 #49267

    anticlimactic
    Participant

    When Boris says the UK Parliament has no control over BREXIT it is a simple statement of fact.

    That is how article 50 works.

    Once invoked it is purely between the leader of the UK and other EU leaders.

    Teresa May could have signed the deal at any point and it would have been binding.

    Just because some are ignorant about a fact it does not mean that their view has any validity.

    I doubt that Macron and Merkel are ignorant of this FACT.

    in reply to: Debt Rattle August 17 2019 #49244

    anticlimactic
    Participant

    BREXIT

    They had their chance!

    The remainers could have accepted the results of the referendum and worked to try and bring about the ‘least worst outcome’ : EEA/EFTA – the ‘Norway solution’.

    The EU could have worked towards a fair agreement, instead of which they foisted a very one sided deal on the compliant Teresa May. They even released a video where the EU claimed it would make the UK an EU ‘colony’!

    Every group involved has been totally unwilling to compromise so they deserve what they get. Even now the Liberal Democrats would prefer a no-deal BREXIT than work with the Labour party under Corbyn!

    It is interesting that the poll quoted suggested 34% supported a no-deal BREXIT, but another recent poll had 54% supporting October 31st BREXIT by any means. An extremely wide gap.

    It needs to come to an end, even if it is ‘No Deal’. At least then everyone can start to adapt to the new environment.

    in reply to: Debt Rattle August 8 2019 #49061

    anticlimactic
    Participant

    ELECTRIC VEHICLES : BATTERIES

    Although nickel may be an issue in the short term, in the longer term ALL the components of lithium batteries will be an issue – resources are finite.

    Lithium batteries are old technology and not really appropriate for cars. A recent program I saw suggested car batteries based on graphene. The advantage is that it would charge as quickly as you can feed in power, so it could take the same time to recharge a car as it does to fill with petrol.

    The exciting part was that the researchers had found a simple way to make graphene – put a thin layer of graphite on a substrate and use lasers similar to those found in CD players to convert it to graphene. This would seem easy to scale up to industrial production and graphene has a LOT of potential uses – it could change the world.

    Solar cells are similarely a complex, clumsy and expensive technology. I am intrigued by research into creating solar cells using perovskite. This would be a transparent thin film layer which could be bonded to any surface. Unfortunately while this material produces energy as good as current solar panels it is unstable so needs further development.

    In another area Yale proposed building ‘city batteries’ based on manganese rather than lithium, a more plentiful resource.

    I would like to see far more spent on research into truly sustainable technologies and far less spent on creating the current clumsy ‘renewable’ resources.

    in reply to: Debt Rattle August 7 2019 #49045

    anticlimactic
    Participant

    TURKEY

    I did wonder why Erdogan was so implacable about obtaining an S400 system – now I know why.

    In the attempted coup the main opposition came from the airforce. At the the time the US had remotely turned off the anti-aircraft systems! Erdogan came very close to death as a fighter had his aircraft in its’ sites but the pilot did not fire.

    One can appreciate why Erdogan wanted a system outside the control of the US!

    Obviously the US was involved in the attempt to depose/murder him so it is understandable that their influence in Turkey has waned. Although the US may not want Turkey to occupy a chunk of Syria Erdogan is not likely to bow to US pressure.

    I read that Saddam Hussein also found some key systems did not work when being attacked by the West. If you buy weapons from the West then you may find they only work against US approved enemies. Not a good selling point!

    in reply to: Debt Rattle July 26 2019 #48793

    anticlimactic
    Participant

    Tulsi Gabbard

    I hope she wins her lawsuit.

    It does seem that the actions of Google required ‘human intervention’, i.e. not a computer glitch, so it appears deliberate and personal.

    I am surprised there have not been many more lawsuits – I would have thought Trump could easily get a billion dollars for all the thousands of libelous articles about him.

    If she wins perhaps it will start a trend.

    in reply to: Debt Rattle July 25 2019 #48775

    anticlimactic
    Participant

    AMAZON

    Amazon famously grew turnover by not bothering to make a profit. [although recently its’ cloud services have done so] Any other retailer is at a disadvantage as they do need to make a profit.

    It would seem that the only way to compete against Amazon is to start a company selling goods at a loss. There are numerous examples of companies which have no prospect of making profits but which gain high valuations, so this should not be an issue. Investors subsidising consumers with no chance of recouping their money is common nowadays.

    in reply to: Debt Rattle July 24 2019 #48756

    anticlimactic
    Participant

    MH17

    From the early days it always seemed beyond doubt that MH17 was brought down by the Ukraine government, but I could not think of a logical reason for why they did it. IF it was a false flag operation to justify an armed invasion of East Ukraine THEN it makes sense. However this implies collusion with the US and possibly other governments.

    Respect to Malaysia – it seems their efforts lead to a very different history.

    in reply to: Debt Rattle July 23 2019 #48738

    anticlimactic
    Participant

    INEQUALITY

    Economies are mostly driven by consumers. By effectively reducing wages buying power is reduced, damaging the economy. More pressure is put on wages and jobs ending in a down ward spiral. This also leads to what I think of as the ‘supermarket effect’, where people are always looking for ever cheaper goods, ignoring higher quality home-made goods and buying cheaper foreign produced goods, again damaging the economy.

    Lending/debt for the very rich is at very low interest rates, zero in some cases. The cost of debt for everyone else is very high, possibly 20% or higher. Again this damages the economy.

    The rich will often spend their money on property, land and shares, pumping up the costs while not actually producing anything. This has a ripple effect inflating all property prices; farmers can not afford to buy extra land or may sell up to conglomerates; pension funds will get lower returns on investments. All this is bad for the economy.

    The balance needs to be restored for a healthy economy.

    in reply to: Debt Rattle July 22 2019 #48715

    anticlimactic
    Participant

    ADAM & EVE

    It struck me recently that genetically speaking Adam and Eve would have been brother and sister. This is not the only problem as who do the kids mate with? Incest would have been a feature for many generations until differences evolved.

    in reply to: Debt Rattle July 21 2019 #48702

    anticlimactic
    Participant

    UK MILITARY

    The Ministery of Defence [MOD] has a healthy budget [I think it is 60 billion GBP]. Unfortunately the MOD seems to have a history of wasting their budget. [Eg. A ship can easily cost as much as 1,000 missiles which can sink that ship!]

    I would question the strategy of the MOD. It should be to defend the UK, but it seems to be more of a US auxiliary force! This would be okay if we could charge the US for ‘services rendered’ rather than have UK tax payers subsidising US military adventures. It is certainly not in a position to threaten Russia and China, as it has done verbally.

    BREXIT is going to affect the UK economy to a greater or lesser extent which implies government spending will be curtailed. The choice would be supporting the UK population or trying to be a threat to the world! Also BREXIT will mean the UK will be desperate for trading partners which will not be helped by a belligerent attitude.

    [PS. I was in favour of the UK keeping Gibralter as I felt it helped the local Spanish economy. Given recent events I am quite happy for Spain to take it back. Probably best after BREXIT when no-one but the UK will care.]

    in reply to: Debt Rattle July 20 2019 #48687

    anticlimactic
    Participant

    IRAN

    One of my tests to consider if something is justified is wondering if it was still justified if the situation is reversed. Given the reaction of the UK and US to the seizing of the UK ship the answer seems to be ‘no’!

    The UK has authorised [by example] the seizing of any UK ship by any country on any made up charge. It is a good way to irritate the UK as it is not enough to justify a war, but is enough to impose feelings of humiliation and impotence.

    We may see more of this is the future as countries become annoyed by the UK trying to be a US ‘mini-me’!

    in reply to: Debt Rattle July 19 2019 #48664

    anticlimactic
    Participant

    ‘IRAN’ DRONE

    The US says the drone was destroyed ‘immediately’ but then says it was downed by electronic interference, which is not ‘immediate’ to my mind.

    Given the closeness to the ship it would have easy to recover the debris to prove it was Iranian. Even some film footage, anything…any evidence at all!

    Unfortunately the US has a habit of lying and in this case I would believe Iran.

    in reply to: Debt Rattle July 16 2019 #48585

    anticlimactic
    Participant

    SHALE OIL – ANOTHER QUIRK

    I read an article which said the shale oil was too light to be processed by US refineries unless it is blended with a very heavy oil like Canadian tar sands, so it HAS to be exported AND the US MUST import oil suitable for its’ refineries.

    On paper the US may appear to be independent in terms of oil supply but in the real world it still depends on imported oil.

    in reply to: Debt Rattle Bastille Day 2019 #48553

    anticlimactic
    Participant

    OIL TANKER

    I am not sure if the British know how sanctions work.

    The EU may have sanctions about oil to Syria, because they are evil and want to inflict as much suffering as possible [and to keep the refugees flowing!], but this simply means EU companies can not supply oil to Syria – it does NOT mean any EU country can seize ANY foreign owned tanker.

    I doubt if the Spanish are happy that this piracy took place in their waters.

    As I have suggested before – If the UK leaves the EU with a ‘no-deal’ then they will be at the mercy of every country in the world when it comes to trade. They will have to stop their belligerent nature or be financially annihilated!

    in reply to: Debt Rattle July 9 2019 #48462

    anticlimactic
    Participant

    GOLD

    “There is no reason why gold wouldn’t reach that level [$18k] in the next few years, especially as the gold paper market implodes”.

    I’ll believe it when I see it! All too often if you see an article claiming gold will soon be $5k or above it is just before the price gets smashed.

    The ‘paper market’ is COMEX. The rules are designed so that few can make any money from gold. In the recent spike in gold prices COMEX created over 8 million ounces of non-existent gold to ensure the price did not go too far, ensuring supply outstripped demand. A few years ago I believe that on COMEX 200 ounces of paper gold was backed by one ounce of physical gold. No idea what it is today.

    This suits China and Russia who are big buyers of physical gold so they want it as cheap as possible. The key player is China. Although the government claims to own 2100 tons of gold China did once import this amount in a single year, and is a massive importer and producer of gold, and may have been for decades.

    The change may come when China wants to create a gold backed Yuan, when it will need to declare the gold it actually owns. Speculation is 10,000 to 30,000 tons. This should cause the price of gold to rocket and possibly destroy the COMEX.

    The point of gold is not to create wealth, but to preserve wealth. The idea is that the amount of gold in a UK Sovereign would buy 200 loaves in ancient Rome, and would buy 200 loaves today. If the price of gold goes up it could be the fact that the value of the dollar has gone down. The ‘value’ in terms of goods might be the same.

    Beware that there are lots of ways to think you own gold when you don’t!

    in reply to: Debt Rattle July 8 2019 #48443

    anticlimactic
    Participant

    US MIGRANTS

    To be fair, the migrants usually settle in the area the US stole from Mexico! [California, Texas and most of the land in between]

    Perhaps the EU should start sanctions against the US until they give the land back to Mexico.

    in reply to: Debt Rattle July 5 2019 #48394

    anticlimactic
    Participant

    Chris M

    The UK paid in gold! Most of the 7,000 tons of gold the US holds was payment from the UK for WWI and WWII.

    One big question is how much gold the Chinese government owns. This is a country that imports one to two thousand tons of gold every year, as well as producing hundreds of tons per year internally., yet the government only claims it owns just over 2,000 tons! Some feel sure that the figure is closer to 30,000 tons, but we will not know until they stop buying and don’t care who knows.

    The IMF claims to hold 3,000 tons, but this is gold pledged by various governments, and can be redeemed at the official rate of 30 dollars an ounce.

    Most gold is like money – it doesn’t physically exist!

    in reply to: Debt Rattle July 5 2019 #48388

    anticlimactic
    Participant

    US

    – Germany is suffering from the Russian sanctions imposed by the US
    – Germany is suffering from the Iran sanctions imposed by the US
    – The UK seized the oil tanker by ‘request’ from the US
    – The US is well known for giving unpayable loans to developing countries to keep them poor and buy resources cheaply
    – The US is creating inequality among its’ own population
    – The US installed Bolsonaro in Brazil so they could buy its’ resources cheaply and free up the rain forest for exploitation
    – US actions in the middle east have created millions of migrants

    There is no ‘us’ in the US!

    in reply to: Debt Rattle July 4 2019 #48374

    anticlimactic
    Participant

    Re OIL TANKER

    ZerHedge article says the ship has been identified as the Grace 1, a Panamanian-flagged tanker managed by Singapore-based IShips Management Pte Ltd

    in reply to: Debt Rattle July 4 2019 #48369

    anticlimactic
    Participant

    NO DEAL BREXIT

    The UK has a military budget greater than Russia and is using it to be a pathetic US ‘mini-me’. It has just committed an act of war against Singapore by seizing one of its’ oil tankers which was thought to be carrying oil from Iran to Syria. Apart from this it continuously tries to threaten Russia, China and others.

    With a no deal Brexit it has to establish trading relations with the world. Any aggressive act by the UK may end with a ban on any trade by various countries. Also, like the US, the military is in effect funded by debt. Who will fund UK debt?

    I think a no-deal Brexit will end UK militarism. It won’t be able to afford it.

    in reply to: Debt Rattle July 1 2019 #48317

    anticlimactic
    Participant

    Hong Kong & Extradition

    I read that the couple who briefly sheltered Snowden are trying to escape Hong Kong to avoid being extradited to the US to face the same kind of trial as Assange.

    Hong Kong has 20 extradition treaties with various countries.

    The protestors have no moral high ground!

    in reply to: Debt Rattle June 28 2019 #48264

    anticlimactic
    Participant

    Koyaanisqatsi

    This is a Hopi Indian word used as the name of a film which is a collection of film clips in timelapse and slomo to a soundtrack by Philip Glass. I think it is a film which can change how you see the world.

    According to a Hopi Dictionary koyaanisqatsi is defined as

    “life of moral corruption and turmoil”
    “life out of balance”

    The film also defines the word as

    “crazy life”
    “life in turmoil”
    “life disintegrating”
    “a state of life that calls for another way of living”

    To me the key word is ‘balance’ [or ‘fairness’]:

    – True capitalism may be the most efficient way to manufacture goods, but socialism is needed to make sure the benefits are spread fairly.

    – Defence is important to a country but not when the cost leaves the country in a ramshackle state.

    – Industry does need to have some influence on governnment but not to such an extent that it controls the government

    – People should be allowed to express their point of view but not to use their influence to stop other people expressing their point of view.

    – Security is important for a country but not when it turns it into a surveillance state.

    Wherever you look things seem out of balance and there does not seem to be any effective forces trying to get things back into balance.

    in reply to: Debt Rattle June 25 2019 #48186

    anticlimactic
    Participant

    SANCTIONS

    Do sanctions work? My feeling would be ‘no’. It allows those in authority to maintain their grip. I can not imagine the regimes in Cuba and North Korea would have survived if they had been allowed to trade normally. The Chinese government is far more threatened by their global trading than they were as an isolated country.

    Iran allowed their moderates to negotiate the JCPOA as a test to see if the West could be trusted. [Nope!] But the sanctions now give influence back to the hardliners, the exact opposite of what they want to achieve.

    Or is it?

    The US needs a number of imaginary enemies to bolster its’ own regime, so it is perhaps no surprise that the agreements with Cuba and Iran were ripped up, plus the absurdly escalating conflict with China.

    in reply to: Debt Rattle June 24 2019 #48157

    anticlimactic
    Participant

    VICTORIAN TIMES & SOCIALISM

    One of the best books I have read was one on economics by J.K.Galbraith. In it he praises early trade unions who won higher wages for the workers. He argues that this additional spending meant the workers had money to spend on non-essential items, which spawned whole new industries, which brought more buying power to the economy, and so on, in effect creating the modern world.

    This seems to be being reversed with wages stagnant or falling. Also, for decades various methods have been used to hide inflation, further weakening consumer power. The GDP of countries is mainly driven by these consumers.

    For some years I have felt that we are returning to Victorian times, with mega-wealthy individuals and a small middle class to pander to their needs, while the general population is left to exist as best they can.

    in reply to: Debt Rattle June 24 2019 #48156

    anticlimactic
    Participant

    DERIVATIVES – ESCOBAR

    The idea is that if the derivative market blows up then it would destroy the global banking system, but would it?

    One easy solution is to globally declare all derivatives null and void. It would cause pain to a few but should leave most people unaffected. Alternatively individual countries could refuse to honour derivatives in this situation, and would most likely survive.

    Derivatives are a mainly a construct of the West so if non-Western countries stopped trading with Western banks for a week or so and then dealt with the situation at that time.

    Given the enormity of the situation it would call for very drastic measures.

    in reply to: Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran #48120

    anticlimactic
    Participant

    It seems lucky for us that the US did not attack Iran.

    I am sure the first consequence would be Iran closing the straits of Homuz, hopefully just by turning round empty ships arriving. Estimates suggest that the price of oil could go up to possibly 1000 dollars a barrel [Goldman Sachs].

    This in turn would blow up the derivatives market, currently estimated at about 1000 trillion dollars.

    In turn this would have destroyed the global banking system.

    This would have shattered the global economy.

    All this avoided on a whim by Trump!

    If Iran can not get round sanctions then it may close the strait anyway – they have little to lose.

    Although Trump talked about not killing 150 people the whole point of the sanctions is that hundreds of thousands of Iranians will die and put pressure on the regime.

    It is the same with Venezuela, where people are already dying because they do not have access to the medicine they need. Perhaps their names and pictures should be posted on Trumps twitter feed so he will know who he IS killing.

    in reply to: Debt Rattle June 21 2019 #48093

    anticlimactic
    Participant

    IRAN

    I was intrigued when Iran fired missiles into Syria to kill those that they claimed were responsible for a terrorist attack. I was interested to know how accurate they were but there were no follow up reports which suggested to me that they were very accurate. This seemed confirmed a few weeks later when Israel complained that Iran were supplying missile components to Hezbollah which ‘ensured pinpoint accuracy’.

    I certainly felt the emphasis strayed away from direct attack on Iran and more on sanctions.

    If Iran can destroy key infrastructure in nearby countries then a direct conflict could see the war being brought to those who currently feel safe from harm. The weakest point of any country is the power-grid, especially transformers, which are unique and can take a year to replace. I have seen a picture of Iranian anti-ship missiles but am not sure how effective they would be against US ships. Iran has a reputation for being strong on electronic warfare.

    If oil supplies through the region are cut off then the US is in a relatively strong position. Europe is toast so it would be irrational for them to become involved. It is interesting that Israel said it would not take part in any conflict unless directly attacked. Saudi Arabia is far too close to be involved without suffering damage, even if acting just as a host for US forces. The UAV flew from the UAE so that is already a potential target for Iran. Would Turkey try and stop the use of Incirlik?

    There is also the question of whether the conflict would spread. Iraq & Syria do not want US forces on their soil so could take the opportunity to correct that. If Israel became involved it could bring in Hezbollah, who I read have 160,000 missiles, and a lot of battle hardened militia.

    The US could end up acting alone and only from seabourne resources, which themselves could be under threat.

    in reply to: MH17: Compromised From The Start #48092

    anticlimactic
    Participant

    MH17

    The questions that come to mind are :

    One expert said a BUK missile would leave a contrail which would be visible for 50 miles. If true why was there not a single photograph.

    The US say they can detect any missile being fired on the face of the planet, but failed to detect a surface missile from Ukraine soil.

    Why and how was MH17 redirected from its normal route over southern Ukraine to fly over a warzone. Dreamliners can be flown by the CIA [in case of a hijack] so were the pilots guided there or were they flown there. The voice recording should give the answer.

    Why was the voice recording taken from Kiev ATC by security forces and why does the UK refuse to release the black box voice recording and other black box data.

    Minutes before the event a Spanish air traffic controller working in Kiev started tweeting about them going to bring down a plane. He disappeared and has not been heard of since. What happened to him?

    Why do so many people who see the wreckage without prejudice talk about bullet holes?

    Looking at the evidence and expert opinions it seems like a classic false flag operation : MH17 was directed from its normal route to fly over a rebel area. A Ukrainian SU25 fired an air-to-air missile which failed to destroy the plane so they finished it off with cannon fire.

    Kiev immediately claimed it was destroyed by rebels, Kiev knew they knew had a BUK launcher – but they did not have the radar and other essential equipment to bring down the plane. I assume this is why they had to invent a story where the Russians were involved – who would have to know in advance that the airliner would be flying over the area!?

    All evidence to disprove this has been withheld.

    It is unfortunate for the relatives of the deceased that Holland is a US vassal state and their government is forced to lie to them.

    in reply to: Debt Rattle June 19 2019 #48045

    anticlimactic
    Participant

    20/80

    Decades ago I read an article in New Scientist which said 20% of the people in the UK owned 80% of the wealth. It was the same in India and numerous other countries, to such an extent that it could be considered a ‘rule’.

    Although it sounds bad consider the difference between a 30 year old and a 60 year old. The 30 year old may have a mortgage while the 60 year old may own their house outright. The 30 year old may be supporting a family but the 60 year old may have savings for their retirement. And so on.

    I see no issue with 20% owning 80% of the wealth, it is pretty much ‘the norm’. I would worry if it was 10/90 or 1/99.

    Frankly, it is not an issue.

    in reply to: Debt Rattle June 17 2019 #48009

    anticlimactic
    Participant

    HUAWEI

    Huawei seems like it is being forced to make a phone which will be NSA free and Google free! A phone which will not track your movements and report back. A phone which is not recording and analysing everything you do. A phone where the microphone won’t be remotely turned on to spy on you.

    I don’t use a smartphone but I would be interested in a phone like that.

    The ‘military-industrial complex’ is becoming an inadequate term. Perhaps ‘The Borg’ is more appropriate. It is obvious that Google, Facebook, Amazon and others have been ‘assimilated’.

    I would have thought that the opportunity to escape ‘The Borg’ would be attractive. I wouldn’t care if it reported to the Chinese government – they wouldn’t be the ones knocking down my front door! Also I would would doubt that it would – I think there is only one government who would be interested in recording the World.

    The US is important because it is 20% of Global GDP. It seems that the choice is to trade with them or the other 80%!

    in reply to: Debt Rattle May 30 2019 #47687

    anticlimactic
    Participant

    ASSANGE

    When he was arrested I thought that at least he would have medical treatment but it seems he hasn’t had any until now, and I can not imagine the prison hospital is sophisticated.

    This whole episode has degraded and defiled the reputation of every country involved. Some years ago the UK had an international reputation of being fair and honest. I think most people had respect for Sweden, and Australia was seen as amiable and friendly. Ecuador gained some admiration for the sheltering of Assange.

    No more as this trail of slime has tainted every country, all of whom seem to be breaking their own rules to give the US what they want.

    All the citizens of these countries should be worried as it could happen to any of them.

    in reply to: Debt Rattle May 17 2019 #47424

    anticlimactic
    Participant

    NATO is now just a bunch of thugs willing to murder and destroy countries on the whim of their leader, the US.

    It is to be hoped that those responsible will burn in hell with a constant stream of images of all those people they destroyed.

    The main aim now of NATO seems to be starting a [nuclear] war with Russia BUT be in a position to blame Russia for starting it.

    I agree with [candidate] Trump that NATO is a dinosaur that should be scrapped. It is in the interest of all of us.

    in reply to: Debt Rattle May 14 2019 #47375

    anticlimactic
    Participant

    ‘SINCE RECORDS BEGAN’

    Climate ‘scientists’ insist on only using data gathered ‘since records began’, about 150 years in the UK and about 100 years for most of the world. Much less for arctic ice and CO2 levels.

    The Earth is 4.5 billion years old, can’t science give us more data? Yes of course, but it is the ‘wrong data’ and is ignored. For example ice and sediment cores show there have been three previous warm periods in just the last 3 thousand years, the Bronze, Roman and Mediaeval.

    Each was warmer than today, in fact the Bronze was warmer than the Roman, which was warmer than the Mediaeval, which was warmer than today! These cores also show the relationship between CO2 and temperature : CO2 levels move in step with the global temperature 600 years previously! CO2 is a ‘lagging indicater’, not a cause. Science also shows CO2 levels are at historical lows – it has been as much as seven times higher in the past.

    There was an interesting graph published in New Scientist showing a temperature reconstruction of the Earth for the past 4 billion years. For over 50% of the time it showed the Earth as being several degrees warmer than today! I think 2018 was declared the fourth warmest year ‘on record’, but was more like the 2.7 billionth warmest year on Earth! What was interesting was that there seemed to be an upper limit for global temperature, which suggests there is some feedback mechanism to stop temperatures going beyond a certain point.

    ‘Records’ began soon after the Little Ice Age, so it is not surprising that global temperatures increased. For those ‘scientists’ who ARE surprised it is the same as recording temperatures in February and panicking by June because you ‘know’ that in six months time the Earth will be too hot for life.

    After global warming stopped in 1998 a new man-made disaster had to be invented : Climate Change. It is like a fortune teller saying something bad will happen, but they can’t say what or when. When something bad happens they exclaim ‘AHA, told you!…and it’s YOUR fault’.

    I haven’t followed this for a few years. The last thing I read was that they were concerned people regarded ‘Climate Change’ as just being ‘bad weather’ so they needed yet another ‘man-made’ disaster – a computer model to ‘predict’ species extinction. Now they ‘predict’ one MEEELLION species are heading for extinction. Very suspicious!

    in reply to: Debt Rattle March 26 2019 #46268

    anticlimactic
    Participant

    Trump won the battle but we lost the war

    I was glad when Trump was elected because Hillary promised to greatly expand the war in Syria, and had no concern that it may lead to war with Russia. There were a few articles at the time written by people who feared that this would lead to nuclear war.

    Also, Trump said NATO was a dinosaur which should be scrapped, and said the US should not be involved in foreign wars. In addition he said he admired Putin and hoped to much improve the relationship between the US and Russia. He even expressed some admiration for what China had achieved.

    The hysteria of Russiagate and Mueller changed all that.

    It is not just America. I read that the European Parliament has recently passed a resolution declaring Russia ‘an enemy of humanity’, and a resolution to stop Nordstream2.

    The media and the politicians seem oblivious to the fact that almost everything they do is bringing us closer to nuclear war. One false flag could start it at any time.

    I do not know if the end of the Mueller enquiry will embolden Trump to pursue the policies he originally promised or whether we continue on this path of doom.

    in reply to: Debt Rattle March 23 2019 #46208

    anticlimactic
    Participant

    Mueller – Is the boot now on the other foot?

    What mostly came to light during the investigation was collusion between members of the FBI and the Democrats. Some have wondered why no special prosecutor has been appointed to pursue this. Perhaps now is a good time for Trump as it would colour the agenda into the next election.

    in reply to: Debt Rattle March 14 2019 #45974

    anticlimactic
    Participant

    BREXIT – CANUTE RULES THE WAVES!

    There are three current options : Teresa May’s agreement with the EU, Hard Brexit and an extension to negotiate further or prepare for hard brexit.

    British MPs have just voted against all three!

    Negotiating a new agreement in two weeks seems to be a non-starter, especially as the EU has made it plain that the current agreement is non-negotiable.

    Asking for an extension is problematic. If it extends into late May then the UK needs to elect MEPs. Also the EU has said there needs to be a reason for the extension, not just more of the same. An extension needs the acceptance of ALL EU states.

    If nothing happens in the next two weeks the default is hard BREXIT.

    There is a fourth option, which those few who are experts on the subject agree is the best [least worst] option, and that is the EEA/EFTA option, also known as the ‘Norway solution’.

    This would be a compromise but would give something to all sides. For the remainers it would still give ties to the EU, and for the leavers it would give some independence to allow the UK to develop trade with the rest of the world. For business it would mean a minimal disturbance to EU trade. It is the only realistic option. It could be regarded as ‘stage1’ with steps in the future to even more independence from the EU. [If the EU still exists!]

    It would still take some time to negotiate so it seems the way forward would be a two year extension while it is negotiated.

    Unfortunately it is more likely that UK politicians will thrash around for two weeks and we will have a hard BREXIT on the 29th, possibly the worst of all worlds.

    in reply to: The Real New Deal #45845

    anticlimactic
    Participant

    The problem with ‘green initiatives’ is that they are usually thought up by activists who have no clue as to the implications. For example AOC calls for the removal of greenhouse gases, and I am sure CO2 is top of the list. If CO2 levels were halved no plants could grow and most life on Earth would die. Is this what AOC wants?!

    This is just one example, but being ‘green’ is a case of ‘the king who wore no clothes’! If you are ‘green’ then you MUST believe all green initiatives without question, which unfortunately includes many politicians. If you DO question then you are an ‘enemy of the planet’ and must be ostracised.

    Any green initiative must be looked at by intelligent people such as engineers and accountants with the basic questions such as ‘is it viable’ and ‘what would be the actual effects if implemented’.

    For example, here in the UK the governmnet spent 30 billion pounds to provide as much electricity as a 2 billion pound gas fired power station. This is achieved by converting fossil fuels into wind turbines. To save the same amount of energy the money should have been used to better insulate homes, actually reducing the amount of fossil fuel used in the first place.

    Civilisation is totally dependent on the use of energy and I would like it to last as long as possible which means conserving energy. I read that oil may only last 50 years yet the emphasis seems to be getting it out of the ground as quickly as possible, making it as cheap as possible, and using as much as possible! [Sod the kids!]

    Conserving energy [or saving CO2 if that matters to you] is a combination of technology and personal choices. I am impressed that cars can have twice the miles per gallon than older ones, that my 46 inch TV only uses 100 watts, and LED spotlights are now extremely energy efficient.

    I do not use central heating but for those who do are you heating parts of the house you rarely use, like bedrooms, utility rooms, etc. Fan heaters can be used to provide temporary heat as required. Also turning the temperature down and wearing more clothes. I tend to think of wasted heat as ‘heating the universe’!

    It would be useful to have a website which suggests ways that energy can be conserved, but they need to be rational. For example in recent years there has been a trend to massively insulate walls, yet the thermal effect of walls can add heat to a home.

    Greens also need to live in the real world more. Nuclear energy is opposed but the only reason uranium is used in reactors is to create plutonium for weapons. Thorium can be used in reactors and eliminates most of the issues, not least the fact that the waste only needs to be stored for 100 years. I think green organisations should look to backing the development of thorium reactors as way of saving CO2.

    There is much that can be done but it needs a sensible approach.

    in reply to: Debt Rattle March 2 2019 #45720

    anticlimactic
    Participant

    HUAWEI

    Huawei committed two major crimes.

    Firstly they became global leaders in 5G, making equipment far superior to their competitors.

    Secondly they refused to install an NSA backdoor in to their equipment.

    The idea of it being ‘illegal’ for a Chinese company to trade with another country is absurd. Also it is normal in these situations to blackmail a company with a fine in order to continue trading with the US, eg. BNP Paribas. The threat to imprison a member of the company takes it to a whole new level.

    It is always interesting to reverse a situation and see if it is still valid.

    So what if the Chinese government started making it illegal for some US companies to trade with a specific country [eg. Taiwan], and promising to jail their executives if they did not comply.?!

    in reply to: Debt Rattle February 28 2019 #45638

    anticlimactic
    Participant

    HYDROELECTRIC IN GUINEA

    I do not see any problem with this scheme. Having set up a reserve for a large population of chimps they should not be penalised for this. The loss of less than 10% of the chimp population is acceptable.

    Large animals usually reproduce every year or two, but the population does not double because most of them die. Death is normal in nature – nature is not Disneyland.

    I favour true renewable energy, which means it has to produce so much energy it does not need a subsidy. Hydroelectric may be the only one to qualify.

    There does seem to be a general campaign against hydroelectric schemes, which I assume is because they can make money from heavily subsidised not-so-renewable energy like wind turbines. While hydroelectric schemes have a one-off effect on the environment wind turbines kill birds and bats forever.

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 109 total)